altec,
Meaningless means that something has no meaning or signifigance. With that out of the way, religion and morality provide a false security to people in our society. In my opinion it would be better to remove these false securities in order to move on with the betterment of society.
So how do morality and religion have no significance? Also, why are they "false securities"?
Very good point, i did not look at it this way. However, what about all of the people who are raised in a religion, and they simply do not have the courage to escape? That may seem lame, but think about it. All of thoe people who do not go to church, but still believe that there is a God. This isnt through rational thinking, but accepting the doctrine that their parents instilled in the early on. People are still scared of "God's rath" and therefore many of thm wil not turn from him for that sole reason.
If they do not have the "courage" and still want to escape, then surely you can see why their weakness is not my concern.
Spookz,
wrong end. i am on your ass. stop whining. just cross your frikkin t's and dot your frikkin i's
Sorry mate. I do not want you licking my ass or being on my dick. A dildo and an inflatable doll should do the trick for you, no?
you introduce an irrelevant point. further stating the obvious does nothing for the bogus assertion you made. besides why do you stop there?....."....a society requires laws to function."... these laws are meaningless without a moral basis
you are going round in circles.
Why should I have to repeat every assertion I have already made? A society needs a self governing mechanism; a variant of which is a law. The law must have a basis in morality for otherwise, it is meaningless in the sense that the group will not believe the law to have their interests accounted for.
random thought? you postulate a question and answer it too? quite the party in your brain eh? why is a comparison of the fear factor even an issue? do you claim knowledge of the status in the societies you refer to?
You are starting to irritate me with your singular intent of simple annoyance and not an actual discussion. The question and its subsequent response is framed as a response to this:
the needs you mention have nothing to do with investing morality with a supernatural origin in order to enforce compliance within a society. the objective is fear of divine retribution. The comparison is provided to show you the hierarchy of authority. Divinity is the highest authority.
transcends what? belief? divine? fear? make a frikkin attempt to give your sentences a logical structure or refrain from posting
Transcends this-- reality.
do not concern yourself with my intentions.
Well I am getting bored. If you had a worthy counter to my argument, then at least this would be challenging. As it stands, I feel like I am lecturing a third grader on metaphysics.
Every society must have at its core, a certain organization and accountability for threats to this organization. Perhaps you’d like to give an example of a society without any form of organization? Even egalitarian societies have their organization in the notion of egalitarianism.
first, where is it i said that societies do not need organization? the very concept of a society implies organization. my distinction was the level of org. not every society requires a "meshing " of morality into their systems of belief in order to have "organization, accountability" for instance, the greeks and their polytheism. even a brief perusal of history will show that the gods did not give a damn how humans behaved toward each other.
morality was an issue for humans alone. (in general)
It is said here:
societies have ranged from the simple to the complex, from the formal to the informal. to claim that all societies require "organization, accountability" means nothing.
And also, do you even bother thinking through an argument before you made an assertion? For as of now, it is pretty clear that you do not. What is the relevance of your assertion that their gods "did not give a damn how humans behaved toward each other"? Their society had a moral basis. A list of books that will help:
http://www.tcd.ie/Classics/courses/ssgreekmoralitybib.html Why does this seem so hard for you to grasp?
the "organization, accountability" in greek society was present without any "meshing of morality into religion ". neither was additional "authority" required to enforce the expected ethical conduct in greek society
Are you a fool? The Greeks had morality and accountability through "laws" based on morality. Where did I say that all morality must be meshed in religion and that accountability and organization cannot exist without this meshing? Here is my original statement:
I think there is pretty much one thing that still necessitates the need for a supposed universal morality, and that is LAW. Without a moral basis for law, law becomes meaningless. I also think that it is this need for organization, accountability, etc within societies that prompted the meshing of morality into religion-- to give it more authority. I think morality precedes religion.
why do you isolate this point ("organization, accountability") from the rest of your original assertion? ("meshing of morality into religion "
do you think i will not notice this deliberate attempt to divert attention?
OK. OK. I am convinced now that you are indeed a moron. I also said that the need for a higher authority in the enforcement of morality prompted the meshing of morality into religion.
You know that morality precedes religion for a fact because you hold that as your religious belief? Well, fine by me.
explain, step by step, how you reached this conclusion? since when has "to know" implied "to believe"?
You could at least pretend to have a working brain. You said I was stating the obvious and that you knew that morality preceded religion. You make your argument from a religious belief.
See:
wow. i guess it is possible that some might miss the fact that you are merely stating the obvious. however i do not simply think. i know that fact to be true. perhaps a demo of eve and her brood in e. africa developing a code of conduct?
it is still not fact for I cannot prove it.
heh
before eve looked up into the stars, she had to eat. can you extrapolate from that little point, why morality (codes of conduct) would precede religion?
or shall i draw pictures?
Fool, perhaps I do not believe in Eve. And if Eve is meant to represent our early ancestors independent of the bible, the conclusion still cannot be reached as not enough context is provided.
i guess you can only wonder eh?
For your own sake, I suggest you try better tactics; for at this point, you look the fool.
I see you are using the tactic of the weak: quietly withdrawing an assertion by not addressing the challenge. Forgotten this:
As it stands though, the conclusion you reach for an “instinctive” morality does not follow from the argument you provide. How does this “basic” morality that is “hardwired” into our “systems” ensure our survival as a species? This so called “altruism” between a parent and a child does not extend beyond the fundamental group—the family unit. There is no “hardwired” altruism towards other members of the society who are not part of said fundamental group.??
what is my original intent?
Irrelevant. If you do not state what the hell you mean by "basic' morality I can assume whatever.
what are your "many interpretations"? clarify.
Here is one: morality is basic.
Here is two: the only basic morality is kill you unprovoked.
Here is three: the only basic morality is that fuck your sister but not your cousin.
...